Does the First Amendment guarantee "diversity"? — VOICES for REASON

Our new “speech czar” Mark Lloyd wants to increase “diversity” on the airwaves. That’s part of his job title, in fact: “Associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission.” You can get a flavor of what Lloyd means by “diversity” by perusing this 2007 article. As best I can tell, he means something on the order of “more liberals on the air.”

According to the FCC, which has been promoting “diversity” for decades, this is not only consistent with the First Amendment–it’s mandated by it: “The FCC’s interest in promoting diversity goes back to core principles underlying the First Amendment. Our nation benefits from a vibrant marketplace of ideas representing different points of view. [Lloyd] will help ensure that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities.”

By my reading, the core principle underlying the First Amendment is freedom. The First Amendment was established to prevent the government from regulating speech. It said, in effect, to leave each individual free to promote his views without suppression, interference, or punitive action by the government.

That’s the exact opposite of crowning a “speech czar” who can force broadcasters to finance government-controlled public radio, or dictate who can own radio stations, or threaten the broadcast licenses of broadcasters he disagrees with. Government-mandated “diversity” really means government controlled speech. Precisely what the First Amendment forbids.

As far as the First Amendment is concerned, it is irrelevant whether there are “diverse” views in the nation. On some issues there will be (think: today’s wide-ranging political debate Lloyd pretends doesn’t exist). On others there won’t (seen much “diversity” in people’s views on heliocentrism lately?). The basic issue is only: are individuals free?

If Lloyd thinks there aren’t enough liberal voices on the air, he’s free to go start his own radio station. But he should not be able to use government force to control broadcast speech.